Microsoft IGN: Hi-Fi Rush Game Pass metrics underpefromed, porting it to other consoles helps sustainability

[crispy4000]

And much more in IGN's latest editorial:

  

How Xbox Is Changing the Nature of Exclusivity - IGN

WWW.IGN.COM

---

Conversations with a number of industry analysts have convinced me that 2024 is the year we finally start seeing Xbox’s grand ecosystem strategy - and all it entails for exclusivity, multiplatform play, and cloud gaming - finally start to take shape.

 

Quote

"There are signs that Hi-Fi Rush underperformed relative to Microsoft's expectations in terms of its impact on Game Pass subscriptions growth and engagement and full game downloads. Releasing a late port to, say, the Switch, makes continued development of titles like it more sustainable while securing timed exclusivity on Xbox while adding value to Game Pass.

 

 

What a wild time for the industry.  Mid-range budget games only viable on Xbox & PC when they can be ported elsewhere. 

 

There's gotta be some flaw in the business model here that seemingly caught them by surprise.  I can only imagine Microsoft expected Games Pass to take off more than it has by now.

 

 

@Commissar SFLUFAN This all gives even more credence to the things Larian Studios is saying.  Maybe at some point the powers that be decide these types of games aren't worth making anymore, and only the kind that drive subscriptions are worth seriously investing in.  That means more of this:

 

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/weaker-subscription-deals-have-hit-indie-publishers-says-analyst

 

[crispy4000]

The thought of Playstation and Nintendo fanboys hoping that a Microsoft game flops, so that it gets ported (sooner), is especially bonkers.

 

Shit on Starfield enough and you might get to play it some day.

[Keyser_Soze]

I think DF had a good take on this, there's really nothing to lose by doing it and especially with the games they are rumored to be doing it with. The more people playing it the better.

 

 

[crispy4000]

I listened to it earlier, it's one of few things I hard disagree with John on. 

 

If Microsoft were truly focused on making more money, their first priority should be to sell more Xbox consoles, where they have the greatest pull to bring people into their subscription ecosystem.  Devaluing their consoles in effect devalues the draw of Games Pass.  Because anyone who doesn't choose Microsoft first, as most already don't, will have more reason to stay put with what they know.

 

Making a push with portable gaming PCs and OSs is a niche they'd be in competition with Valve with.  And we know how well that's gone with PC storefronts, or even Games Pass on PC itself.

 

Cloud gaming is no better of a bet.  It's a distant play, but Microsoft themselves have argued against the idea that it will be transformative to their gaming business, with how slow adoption has been.

 

On some level, I think Microsoft needs to tap in the mojo Nintendo found with the Switch.  Make an appealing console that does something fresh other than just more and better akin to PC.  Launch it with true 1st party killer apps.  Stop getting people to think they can just wait out their games to be ported to competing platforms.  Maybe even pull in the reins and stop insisting day and date PC ports of everything. *gasp*

 

That's how Games Pass grows.  Get people hyped about your console and exclusive games, and like with Xbox Live, they'll then begin to understand the value of your services.  That was the Microsoft way, and it served them incredibly well in the 360 era.

 

In fairness, this wouldn’t be as democratic and open-minded as they’ve been since Phil took over.  It would have some negative effects for other platforms.  But so does a weak performing Xbox console, which gives Sony free license to act arrogant like with the recent PSN price hikes.

[Xbob42]

You just described what Microsoft spent the last 20 years doing and it didn't work.

[Spork3245]

MSFT has some great first party IPs they do nothing with. They could have easily built up franchises beyond Forza, Halo, and Gears. The OG XBOX had a lot of low-7 to low-8/10 titles that could’ve easily evolved into AAA games. Them dropping basically all of their 90s PC IPs and 2000s OG XBOX IPs has always stood out as batshit insane to me. Mech Assault and Crimson Skies alone could’ve been continual releases with a strong following, and I believe games (that weren’t all that great) could’ve evolved into strong franchises if they had sequels that dealt with player-complaints, games like Brute Force. I really blame Mattrick taking over in the early 360 days to be the reason. Sure, they’ve had basically 1.5 generations to get these back, but I also believe that they’re almost “too far removed” for that to be expected.

[Brian]

Record sales are considered underperforming internally which leads to massive layoffs…..yea something is seriously off with this industry. 

[XxEvil AshxX]

I don't know if you can shadow drop a game at budget price and expect it to boost Game Pass subs.

 

The people who already subscribe are like "sweet!" and the ones who don't likely just dropped the 30 bones. Since everyone was raving about it, it was a pretty safe purchase if you're into games like that. If you aren't, it probably didn't sway you one way or the other.

 

Also, "there are signs" doesn't really mean a whole lot, unless MS admits it themselves. Which they won't.

[crispy4000]

9 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

You just described what Microsoft spent the last 20 years doing and it didn't work.

 

Absolutely not.

 

Mattrick-era Microsoft squandered their development studios, shutting down Lionhead, FASA, Ensemble, etc.  He leaned into Xbox One as a TV passthrough Kinect device.  Meanwhile not funding projects well outside of Halo/Gears/Forza.  It squandered the momentum they built during the 360 era and left a mess for Phil to clean up.

 

Phil convinced the higher ups at the company that they weren't investing enough, and clearly succeeded at getting them to throw the brunt of their weight behind gaming.  It's taken time to start seeing the fruits of it, but there's no doubt in my mind that they could choose to compete on Sony's terms now if they tried.  They have so much potential leverage now over Sony with Activision and Bethesda, it's almost comical.  And no, they've never tried owning Activision and Bethesda before.

 

But they'll keep squandering that if they can't find a way for it to translate into Xbox's success, and Games Pass' success.  Making their would-be console exclusives timed self-sabotages their new advantages.

[crispy4000]

3 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

MSFT has some great first party IPs they do nothing with. They could have easily built up franchises beyond Forza, Halo, and Gears. The OG XBOX had a lot of low-7 to low-8/10 titles that could’ve easily evolved into AAA games. Them dropping basically all of their 90s PC IPs and 2000s OG XBOX IPs has always stood out as batshit insane to me. Mech Assault and Crimson Skies alone could’ve been continual releases with a strong following, and I believe games (that weren’t all that great) could’ve evolved into strong franchises if they had sequels that dealt with player-complaints, games like Brute Force. I really blame Mattrick taking over in the early 360 days to be the reason. Sure, they’ve had basically 1.5 generations to get these back, but I also believe that they’re almost “too far removed” for that to be expected.

 

Glad we're on the same page about Mattrick.  They'd need to weigh those old franchises versus new IP, or the new franchises they've bought.  It probably doesn't make much sense to go back at this point.

 

Although I do think people would lose their shit over a decent looking Banjo game.

[Xbob42]

The idea of them turning a bunch of barely-known ancient franchises into massive hits (or even moderately successful ones that'll move the GP numbers at all) when they can't even get their flagships straight seems idealistic in the extreme to me. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for them to look at all those old franchises, but they somehow secured a Bethesda dud. I'm sure Starfield did "fine," but it did not do Skyrim numbers. They can't even buy their way into great games lately. It's almost comical how every chance they get on near-surefire hits just keeps making a big wet fart.

[Dodger]

If you build it, they will come. Sony and Nintendo built their success on having great IP, and it took years for them to get there. MS is just now starting to see the fruits of all their acquisitions with most of the studios not having released a single game yet. Looks like this year is when they finally hit the ground running. 

 

You buy a Switch due to the convenience of the portability, and it's exclusive games. You buy a PS5 because of it's exclusive games. Soon people will buy an Xbox due to exclusives or because with Games Pass you can get your COD on and play enough other games that it's all you need. Starfield was the 11th best selling game last year despite all the shit it got and being on Games Pass. Forza Horizon 5 is closing in on 40 million lifetime players. Sea of Thieves is somehow still successful. Make good games and they will generally succeed, even on Xbox. 

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for them to look at all those old franchises, but they somehow secured a Bethesda dud. I'm sure Starfield did "fine," but it did not do Skyrim numbers. They can't even buy their way into great games lately. It's almost comical how every chance they get on near-surefire hits just keeps making a big wet fart.

Starfield is hardly a dud compared to the likes of Fallout 76.  Bethesda isn’t an automatic hit builder like… Activison is with CoD.

 

I don’t think the narrative will stay that way for long.  I’d imagine Hellblade 2 will get high marks, and expect good things from their showcase this week.

[crispy4000]

46 minutes ago, Dodger said:

If you build it, they will come. Sony and Nintendo built their success on having great IP, and it took years for them to get there. MS is just now starting to see the fruits of all their acquisitions with most of the studios not having released a single game yet. Looks like this year is when they finally hit the ground running. 

 

You buy a Switch due to the convenience of the portability, and it's exclusive games. You buy a PS5 because of it's exclusive games. Soon people will buy an Xbox due to exclusives or because with Games Pass you can get your COD on and play enough other games that it's all you need. Starfield was the 11th best selling game last year despite all the shit it got and being on Games Pass. Forza Horizon 5 is closing in on 40 million lifetime players. Sea of Thieves is somehow still successful. Make good games and they will generally succeed, even on Xbox. 

Porting your would-be exclusives to rival platforms goes against than mantra.  (ie: If you build it everywhere, they will stay)
 

It puts even more pressure on Games Pass to sell consoles.  Die hard Xbox fans have bought in, but the mass market hasn’t been convinced of a subscription-based gaming future.  Perhaps strong Starfield sales are an indication of that.

 

CoD has a lot of legwork to do to change purchase habits.  We’ll see, it could happen.

 

[Dodger]

53 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Porting your would-be exclusives to rival platforms goes against than mantra.  (ie: If you build it everywhere, they will stay)
 

It puts even more pressure on Games Pass to sell consoles.  Die hard Xbox fans have bought in, but the mass market hasn’t been convinced of a subscription-based gaming future.  Perhaps strong Starfield sales are an indication of that.

 

CoD has a lot of legwork to do to change purchase habits.  We’ll see, it could happen.

 

 

 

I don't think they should port any games to any other systems. Every single game from first party studios outside of whatever contracts have to be honored with Activision should be Xbox/PC exclusive. COD should probably even be exclusive the second it can be, but that's so massive maybe it makes sense to give it the Minecraft treatment. Anything short of that, all exclusive. Especially with Sony hitting a real dry patch with first party content. Now is the time for MS to make some ground, end the gen on a high note with quality games coming out and have some great exclusive content ready for the Nextbox. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Absolutely not.

 

Mattrick-era Microsoft squandered their development studios, shutting down Lionhead, FASA, Ensemble, etc.  He leaned into Xbox One as a TV passthrough Kinect device.  Meanwhile not funding projects well outside of Halo/Gears/Forza.  It squandered the momentum they built during the 360 era and left a mess for Phil to clean up.

 

Phil convinced the higher ups at the company that they weren't investing enough, and clearly succeeded at getting them to throw the brunt of their weight behind gaming.  It's taken time to start seeing the fruits of it, but there's no doubt in my mind that they could choose to compete on Sony's terms now if they tried.  They have so much potential leverage now over Sony with Activision and Bethesda, it's almost comical.  And no, they've never tried owning Activision and Bethesda before.

 

But they'll keep squandering that if they can't find a way for it to translate into Xbox's success, and Games Pass' success.  Making their would-be console exclusives timed self-sabotages their new advantages.

While yes Don Mattrick did a great deal of harm to the Xbox ecosystem and brand in his 3 year tenure as president and 6 years with the company, Phil has been president for even longer and something still isn’t right. 
 

the hardware has gotten better and more focused for gaming. The value has gotten better with Gamepass. But what the hell has happened to their big IPs under the Xbox banner? 
 

So few titles coming out and then when a big tent pole title does come out it feels way off. Feeling incomplete, lacking quality control, feeling like a shadow of even past tiles made by the studio or in the franchise. Like yes Halo infinite seems like it’s in a decent place now, but it got delayed by a year and then took another year to make it feel like a complete Halo title anyone would want to spend any time in. 
 

Maybe it’s a combination of many things. Leadership at studios full of more marketing people than creative game designers, compared to the OG and 360 days. Games made specifically to go to Gamepass so the mindset is “if it’s not ready we can just release it and finish it over time” like a free to play live service title. They’re not thinking of these games like they need to be finished boxed products any more. 
 

Maybe more to do with leadership we also got the stories that Microsoft game studios seemed to heavily use contract developers over hiring more full time developers. They then allow contracts to expire and hire new contractors in mid development. So a significant portion of the development staff have little to know experience with the engine, tools, hierarchy, culture, etc for a large portion of their tenure. theres little continuity with talent.

 

something is out of balance. the result of which is I cant think of the last title that after a month of release you could point to and say "that's a system seller".  Xbox has Gamepass, which I dont mean this to say there aren't any good games on it, but kind of embodies a quantity over quality. Microsoft first party feels like it peaked on the Xbox 360. 
 

honestly I’m ok with Xbox doesn’t have any exclusives. Only fanboys care about games staying platform exclusives. I’m ok if their value proposition to gamers is Gamepass and that’s the reason to buy an Xbox. I’m not ok with the lack of quality coming out of MS first party. 

[crispy4000]

50 minutes ago, Dodger said:

I don't think they should port any games to any other systems. Every single game from first party studios outside of whatever contracts have to be honored with Activision should be Xbox/PC exclusive. COD should probably even be exclusive the second it can be, but that's so massive maybe it makes sense to give it the Minecraft treatment. Anything short of that, all exclusive. Especially with Sony hitting a real dry patch with first party content. Now is the time for MS to make some ground, end the gen on a high note with quality games coming out and have some great exclusive content ready for the Nextbox. 

 

It sucks for Sony/Nintendo fans, but absolutely, yes.  Gamers already get a better deal nowadays with PC and cloud being an option, if you really don't want to buy their box.

 

Some 1st party games and contracted titles are going to perform below expectations.  That's just the name of the game.  At the very least, those games can still pad the subscription line-up.  You don't see Nintendo porting Astral Chain and the Bayonetta games they funded because they want to recoup more.

[crispy4000]

@Spawn_of_Apathy

 

I'm much more forgiving of their rebuilding efforts than you right now. The fact that we still haven't seen a new Double Fine project, or Hellblade 2 still not being out, is less of a statement on Microsoft and more about good games taking time, IMO.  Some of the studio assets they bought were in middle of rough patches.  Microsoft is never going to save Redfall or Overwatch 2, for example.

 

Then you have Starfield being the most bugfree launch of a BGS game.  Maybe it wasn't a GOTY contender in a competitive year, but it is an indication that they can make the right development calls to delay.  With more studio assets, there's also less pressure to rush Halo out the door to fill a need.  It gives them so many more opportunities to make the right calls, as opposed to the past.

 

 

I don't believe its fanboyish to care about them making exclusives to prop up their console, even just keeping them off Sony/Nintendo.  Its what will keep them competitive, and would better hold Sony accountable.  I'm very skeptical that a console can sell as a ticket to spend money on a subscription you don't already have.  This console generation seems to be a referendum on that idea.

 

To say it again, I also want them to pursue some kind of hardware hook.  They tried this gen with quick resume, but IMO, it's not enough.  They need to do more with the controller, at the very least.  One up the Dualsense.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

24 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

It sucks for Sony/Nintendo fans, but absolutely, yes.  Gamers already get a better deal nowadays with PC and cloud being an option, if you really don't want to buy their box.

 

Some 1st party games and contracted titles are going to perform below expectations.  That's just the name of the game.  At the very least, those games can still pad the subscription line-up.  You don't see Nintendo porting Astral Chain and the Bayonetta games they funded because they want to recoup more.

I think this is where Sony is starting to see the light though. Nintendo has likely made most of what they’re going to on Astral Chain and Bayonetta on the Switch. Release them on PC now and they will get people buying them who aren’t buying a Switch or people rebuying them to play at higher quality and performance. 
 

At a certain point exclusivity just leaves money on the table. Even if you think that because games are kind of forever on PC, just look to Skyrim. Even on PC there are like 2-3 versions of the game. And many new mods require the anniversary edition. So if you just own the standard version and want those mods, you’re paying something for the game again. Bethesda still getting paid. Many of the people who bought Tears of the Kingdom on a switch day one would buy it again on PC in a heartbeat if in May of this year a PC version dropped. Heck many people would buy an official Breath of the Wild PC port if one released this year. Because most PC players don’t engage in piracy and even of those that do some would still buy the official PC release to clear their conscience or for whatever improvements there could be for having a more native port vs a rom on an emulator. 

[crispy4000]

6 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I think this is where Sony is starting to see the light though. Nintendo has likely made most of what they’re going to on Astral Chain and Bayonetta on the Switch. Release them on PC now and they will get people buying them who aren’t buying a Switch or people rebuying them to play at higher quality and performance. 

 

Sony hasn't taken lessons from Nintendo.  If Sony maintained high pricing of their 1st party games, and made more games with conservative development budgets, they wouldn't have felt the need to port PC at all.

 

It's why Nintendo hasn't budged.  They figured out how to play the market, and win.  They're the only ones who haven't devalued their modern offerings with subscriptions and heavy price cuts, and they're still the market leader.

 

6 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

At a certain point exclusivity just leaves money on the table. Even if you think that because games are kind of forever on PC, just look to Skyrim. Even on PC there are like 2-3 versions of the game. And many new mods require the anniversary edition. So if you just own the standard version and want those mods, you’re paying something for the game again. Bethesda still getting paid. Many of the people who bought Tears of the Kingdom on a switch day one would buy it again on PC in a heartbeat if in May of this year a PC version dropped. Heck many people would buy an official Breath of the Wild PC port if one released this year. Because most PC players don’t engage in piracy and even of those that do some would still buy the official PC release to clear their conscience or for whatever improvements there could be for having a more native port vs a rom on an emulator. 

 

Again, I think Nintendo is a great counterpoint here.  What exactly are they leaving on the table by continually selling millions of copies at full price, or at $40 on occasional discount?  Meanwhile, they're building cultural zeitgeist with things like Mario movies and theme parks.  They make appealing hardware, tout their family friendly IP, then stick to their guns to cash in on evergreen titles.

They have no need for the PC-centric audience, and stand to lose more hardware sales, royalties and subscription revenue if they pursue it.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

@Spawn_of_Apathy

 

I'm much more forgiving of their rebuilding efforts than you right now. The fact that we still haven't seen a new Double Fine project, or Hellblade 2 still not being out, is less of a statement on Microsoft and more about good games taking time, IMO.  Some of the studio assets they bought were in middle of rough patches.  Microsoft is never going to save Redfall or Overwatch 2, for example.

 

Then you have Starfield being the most bugfree launch of a BGS game.  Maybe it wasn't a GOTY contender in a competitive year, but it is an indication that they can make the right development calls to delay.  With more studio assets, there's also less pressure to rush Halo out the door to fill a need.  It gives them so many more opportunities to make the right calls, as opposed to the past.

 

 

I don't believe its fanboyish to care about them making exclusives to prop up their console, even just keeping them off Sony/Nintendo.  Its what will keep them competitive, and would better hold Sony accountable.  I'm very skeptical that a console can sell as a ticket to spend money on a subscription you don't already have.  This console generation seems to be a referendum on that idea.

 

To say it again, I also want them to pursue some kind of hardware hook.  They tried this gen with quick resume, but IMO, it's not enough.  They need to do more with the controller, at the very least.  One up the Dualsense.

 

 

 

 

Good games do take time, but so far their bad games have also taken quite a bit of time. I’m not even blaming them for Redfall or Overwatch 2, or Diablo 4’a release and first season, and other stuff. I would call Starfield BGS’s most “bug free” title as it still had bugs. Some small, some large, but they were there. It was their least buggy game at release though. I’ll give them that and that is likely largely due to MS pouring additional QA resources into the game in the final 12-18 months. Still couldn’t save BGS from some woeful design and development decisions that went into the game.
 

And I know we can’t expect studios to turn around a AAA title within 1-2 years of their acquisition. But even before the buying spree MS first party studios seemed aimless. While Sony and Nintendo were pumping out banger after banger. 
 

Maybe Mattrick had made some changes in many of these studios that aren’t so easily undone, and the crop of games over the last 10 years have been a result of that. Something Phil can’t easily undo. Maybe Phil doesn’t know how to lead a large software publisher, but he’s great with leading hardware development and he’s good at PR. But both the quantity and the quality of titles we were getting on the Xbox 360 vastly outweigh what’s been delivered on the Xbox One onward. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

11 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Sony hasn't taken lessons from Nintendo.

I didn’t say they had. Sony is releasing titles in PC while Nintendo isn’t. My stance is Sony has seen the light that there is money to be made selling to PC gamers. Selling to both people who won’t buy a PS or will rebuy a game on PC. In contrast Nintendo is willing to let that money sit on the table. 

[crispy4000]

17 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

And I know we can’t expect studios to turn around a AAA title within 1-2 years of their acquisition. But even before the buying spree MS first party studios seemed aimless. While Sony and Nintendo were pumping out banger after banger.

 

That is true, but it sounded like Microsoft higher-ups weren't giving Xbox the money it needed to succeed regardless.  Maybe Mattrick could have fought harder.  I think it was Phil's vision that ultimately convinced them to open up their pocketbooks.

 

17 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Maybe Mattrick had made some changes in many of these studios that aren’t so easily undone, and the crop of games over the last 10 years have been a result of that. Something Phil can’t easily undo. Maybe Phil doesn’t know how to lead a large software publisher, but he’s great with leading hardware development and he’s good at PR. But both the quantity and the quality of titles we were getting on the Xbox 360 vastly outweigh what’s been delivered on the Xbox One onward. 

Epic and Bungie deciding to do their own thing was extremely detrimental to the brand.  I think that's a huge part of the story that can't be overlooked.  They were forced to rebuild some of their biggest IPs from scratch, which was never going to be easy.

 

It's not like 360 era Microsoft was perfect either.  Rare is a great example of that.

 

  

13 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I didn’t say they had. Sony is releasing titles in PC while Nintendo isn’t. My stance is Sony has seen the light that there is money to be made selling to PC gamers. Selling to both people who won’t buy a PS or will rebuy a game on PC. In contrast Nintendo is willing to let that money sit on the table. 

And I'm saying there's probably more money to be made in successfully gouging their Playstation audience, as Nintendo does theirs.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

13 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

It's not like 360 era Microsoft was perfect either.  Rare is a great example of that.

That is true. Even if I don’t care for Sea of Theives, it’s nice to see Rare making games again. 
 

17 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

And I'm saying there's probably more money to be made in successfully gouging their Playstation audience, as Nintendo does theirs

Plenty of gamers don’t want to play games on PC and Sony is still doing just fine gouging their console audience. Like with the TLOU remasters. Jim Ryan seemed to make it his mission to fleece PlayStation owners, and they’re still releasing games on PC. 

[Spork3245]

3 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

The idea of them turning a bunch of barely-known ancient franchises into massive hits (or even moderately successful ones that'll move the GP numbers at all) when they can't even get their flagships straight seems idealistic in the extreme to me

 

Well, the idea (in my post at least) was to never abandon them and thus they wouldn't be "barely known" or "ancient". At this point, it doesn't necessarily make sense to revive them... well, maybe they could do Mech Assault because people love big robots blowing crap up.  

[crispy4000]

22 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Plenty of gamers don’t want to play games on PC and Sony is still doing just fine gouging their console audience. Like with the TLOU remasters. Jim Ryan seemed to make it his mission to fleece PlayStation owners, and they’re still releasing games on PC. 

 

I'll have paid $20 total for TLOU part II and the upgrade, all said and done.  I hardly consider that gouging compared to what Nintendo is doing.

 

The only Nintendo games I can buy for that cheap are Ubisoft published.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

15 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

I'll have paid $20 total for TLOU part II and the upgrade, all said and done.  I hardly consider that gouging compared to what Nintendo is doing.

 

The only Nintendo games I can buy for that cheap are Ubisoft published.

I don’t really consider Nintendo not dropping the price much or often on games as gouging. Now if when Switch 2 releases and they put out a Breath of the Wild remaster with 60fps for $50-$70 even if you own the original digital I’ll say “yeah”. I would say yeah in regards to digital purchases as owning a title digitally on the Wii didn’t translate to you owning it digitally on the Switch. That’s definitely gouging to me. 
 

to me this is an area where MS does far better (to the consumer) than either Sony or Nintendo. To me this and MS’s commitment to game preservation and backwards compatibility and licensing is has been my favorite thing about Phil’s leadership at Xbox. 

[crispy4000]

31 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I don’t really consider Nintendo not dropping the price much or often on games as gouging. Now if when Switch 2 releases and they put out a Breath of the Wild remaster with 60fps for $50-$70 even if you own the original digital I’ll say “yeah”. I would say yeah in regards to digital purchases as owning a title digitally on the Wii didn’t translate to you owning it digitally on the Switch. That’s definitely gouging to me. 

 

Call it whatever you will, it makes them more money.  They’ve done gangbusters this gen taking advantage of their lead in avoiding race to the bottom tactics.  One poorly priced remaster of BoTW would not make me gawk at them as much as their collective efforts to keep us paying full price (or close to it).  I know I’ve gotten much less out of the Switch as a result.

 

The only company I can think of being close to this bad historically is SquareEnix, but even they’ve cooled off considerably with their pricing and openness to the subscription services.

 

Unless I dunno, you really want I Am Setsuna for the price it’s probably worth.

 

31 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

to me this is an area where MS does far better (to the consumer) than either Sony or Nintendo. To me this and MS’s commitment to game preservation and backwards compatibility and licensing is has been my favorite thing about Phil’s leadership at Xbox. 

 
Agreed 100%.  It’s been one of the things that’s ushered in some positive change across the board, and will likely continue to.

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Well, the idea (in my post at least) was to never abandon them and thus they wouldn't be "barely known" or "ancient". At this point, it doesn't necessarily make sense to revive them... well, maybe they could do Mech Assault because people love big robots blowing crap up.  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

This was an excellent article/analysis from Rebekah who has really proven herself to be a treasure to IGN in particular and games journalism as a whole 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Looks like we've got another article along the same theme!
 

Why Microsoft might be considering Xbox exclusives on PlayStation and Nintendo Switch - The Verge

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

---

Rumors have Xbox fans wondering what’s going on.

 

Quote

 

Xbox Series S / X sales are still lagging behind the PS5, and Spencer acknowledged last year that losing the prior Xbox One generation was “the worst generation to lose” because everyone was building their digital library of games during the previous generation. Some might argue that opening up some older Xbox exclusives on a case-by-case basis to PlayStation and Nintendo Switch only helps Microsoft improve Xbox Game Pass with more revenue it can invest in its studios to build more games.

 

Such a move could even work as stealth marketing for Xbox Game Pass since games like Sea of Thieves and Hi-Fi Rush are both part of the monthly subscription price and are available immediately on Xbox consoles. Either way, when you look at Microsoft’s gaming business, it’s clear that for it to grow substantially, it won’t be through selling Xbox consoles alone. Microsoft has made it clear in the past that it wants to target billions of players through the cloud, expanding PC Game Pass, and a new Xbox mobile store is also in the works.

 

This opportunity means we’re going to see Microsoft, and even Sony, explore new ways for their games to be played. Sony has followed Microsoft into the game subscription era, launched multiple PlayStation exclusives on PC, and opened up PS5 games to cloud streaming. It even has big ambitions for cross-platform live-service games, although some of that is being pushed back due to “mixed levels of success.” The point is both PlayStation and Xbox are experimenting with how they sell their games and where players experience them.

 

So would it be surprising to see some Xbox exclusives arrive on PlayStation or Nintendo Switch? Absolutely not. If it actually happens, the devil will be in the details.

 

 

[crispy4000]

Quote

Such a move could even work as stealth marketing for Xbox Game Pass since games like Sea of Thieves and Hi-Fi Rush are both part of the monthly subscription price and are available immediately on Xbox consoles. Either way, when you look at Microsoft’s gaming business, it’s clear that for it to grow substantially, it won’t be through selling Xbox consoles alone. Microsoft has made it clear in the past that it wants to target billions of players through the cloud, expanding PC Game Pass, and a new Xbox mobile store is also in the works.

Step 1: Port would be console exclusives.

 

Step 2: Watch gamers buy them on their platform of choice that doesn’t support Games Pass.

 

Step 3: …?

Step 4:  'Billions' of Games Pass users.

 

 

What is step 3?  That’s the question these articles aren’t answering.  
 

Cloud, PC, Consoles each have hurdles Microsoft needs to cross to get there.  Much bigger than “stealth marketing” could hope to solve.
 

The only answer I can come to, with what we know, is that CoD on Games Pass becomes a resounding success.  People switch en masse from buying CoD to subscribing to CoD, to the point where Games Pass becomes the linchpin of this industry.  But that also means that everything else, including the thought processes in these articles, truly wouldn’t matter.